Court holds petitioner estopped from disputing tender validity after voluntarily submitting affidavit expressing willingness to execute work despite bid validity expiry
In a significant ruling dated July 27, 2026, the Patna High Court (Division Bench comprising Mr. Sudhir Singh, A.C.J. and Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.) dismissed a writ petition filed by Raj Kishor Singh challenging the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) by the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited (BRPNNL) concerning a major bridge construction contract in Araria District, Bihar.
The petitioner, Raj Kishor Singh, had submitted the lowest bid for the construction of an RCC bridge over the Parman River, quoting a rate 25.44% below the estimated cost. After bid evaluation, the petitioner was declared the lowest bidder. However, the petitioner challenged the LoA dated June 12, 2025, on two primary grounds: first, that the LoA was issued by the Senior Project Engineer, who lacked jurisdiction as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) which required the "Employer" to issue such acceptance; and second, that the LoA was issued after the expiry of the bid validity period (120 days from the bid submission deadline), without any formal extension as mandated under the bidding terms.
The respondent BRPNNL contended that the petitioner had voluntarily submitted an affidavit and undertaking dated May 10, 2025, in response to a request for justification of the unusually low bid price. This affidavit expressly confirmed the petitioner's readiness and willingness to execute the work at the quoted rate within the stipulated timeframe and technical specifications. Relying on this representation, the respondents issued the LoA and directed the petitioner to furnish the requisite performance guarantees.
The Court examined whether the petitioner could simultaneously accept the benefits of the contract by submitting the affidavit and later repudiate the LoA on procedural grounds. Invoking the doctrine of election, the Court emphasized that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate" - i.e., accept and reject the same transaction. The Court referred to authoritative precedents from the Supreme Court of India, including R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir (1992) and Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (2013), reinforcing that equitable principles prevent a party from taking advantage of a contract and then challenging its validity.
The Court held that the petitioner's conduct in voluntarily submitting the affidavit amounted to a clear representation of willingness to perform the contract. Acting on such representation, the respondents issued the LoA. Therefore, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the validity of the LoA on grounds of jurisdictional competence or expiry of the bid validity period.
Further, the Court observed that had the petitioner genuinely believed that the bid validity period had expired or that the Senior Project Engineer lacked authority, it should have raised those objections at an earlier stage, rather than affirming willingness to execute the work. The writ petition was thus dismissed as devoid of merit, and the petitioner was barred from rescinding its own undertaking.
This ruling underscores the importance of consistent and fair conduct in tender processes and highlights that courts will not entertain challenges that amount to approbation and reprobation, especially when the party has voluntarily induced the issuance of a contract.
Bottom Line:
Tender Process - A party that voluntarily submits an affidavit and undertaking expressing its willingness to execute a contract and induces the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance cannot later challenge the validity of the Letter of Acceptance on grounds of jurisdiction or bid validity expiry.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Clause 15.2 and Clause 30 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) under the Standard Bidding Document (SBD)
Raj Kishor Singh v. State of Bihar, (Patna)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972616
